At least eight universities, including four public institutions, have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for Hillary Rodham Clinton to speak on their campuses over the past year, sparking a backlash from some student groups and teachers at a time of austerity in higher education.

In one previously undisclosed transaction, the University of Connecticut — which just raised tuition by 6.5 percent — paid $251,250 for Clinton to speak on campus in April. Other examples include $300,000 to address UCLA in March and $225,000 for a speech scheduled to occur in October at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.

The potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate also has been paid for speeches at the University at Buffalo, Colgate University and Hamilton College in New York, as well as Simmons College in Massachusetts and the University of Miami in Florida.

Officials at those five schools refused to say what they paid Clinton. But if she earned her standard fee of $200,000 or more, that would mean she took in at least $1.8 million in speaking income from universities over the past nine months.

Miami U is currently presided over by Clinton HHS troll Donna Shalala, which I’m sure had nothing to do with this pricey little donation.UC is run by yet another Clinton troll, Janet Napolitano.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

Hard Little Machine

More than most Americans make in 3 years for one speech.

Daniel Greenfield

or 30

DogmaelJones1

Hey, guys: I’m willing to speak for the price of a month’s rent. I’m a cheap date. And I’d say something of substance, too. You’ll walk away the better for having listened to me.

Randy CA

People are saying that the Clinton’s earned it, but actually I don’t think that is quite the case. I see it as being kind of the same thing that results in all the government waste; its nobody’s money. The people paying her all that money are paying with “nobody’s money”–money in some foundation, fund or some such. She is not earning it, meaning that she is delivering an equal or greater value to the client. It is more like a corrupt steward of some fund letting a friend loot the fund which was never intended for the purpose of enriching some political fat cat.

In the cases where the Clinton’s are paid by someone using their own funds, I think calling it a speaking fee is just cover for what is really being sold.

Daniel Greenfield

It’s a complicated network of non-profits moving money around, but there are also private donors using these mechanism to fund the Clintons.

notme123

So sick of the lying. I wish these “not so well off” people would go back under the rock they crawled out of, and give us back our country.

http://tinatrent.com/ Tina Trent

The private ones are 501-c3 institutions; the public ones are, well, public institutions. No 501-c3 academic institution is actually abiding by the IRS rules being imposed on Tea Parties and education reform groups — I just finished the first appeal for one such group, and it’s fascinating what we are being told we cannot do that is done every single day on thousands of 501-c3 college and university campuses.

The IRS has said that our only recourse is to report those we feel are violating rules that they are selectively enforcing against us.

So. Perhaps it’s time to request an official IRS investigation into every private institution of higher education in the U.S. that claims 501-c3 status. That would be roughly 1,000 complaints, including the entire Ivy League and many of the most prestigious research institutions. Then investigate the 501-c3 affiliates of the public ones (3,000 – 3500 institutions).

rambler

Well that explains who is stupid enough to pay her to speak. How well attended were these speeches or did she speak to an empty room? I doubt that they were anything more than boring!